Reimagining Safety and Density: Inside Virginia’s Single-Stair Advisory Report
By Eric S. Cavallo
Virginia Licensed Commercial Building Contractor | Founder & President, Earthly Infrastructure® | Board Member, Virginia Beach BZA | Stakeholder Advisor, DHCD Single-Stair Exit Workgroup
In November 2024, the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) submitted a milestone report to the Board of Housing and Community Development and the Virginia General Assembly. The report, authored by the Single-Staircase Advisory Group — on which I was proud to serve — details the findings, challenges, and future considerations for permitting single-exit stairways in R-2 multifamily residential buildings up to six stories in height.
Our work was guided by the legislative directives of HB368 and SB195, which tasked the Board with exploring regulatory pathways that could support urban infill, small-lot development, and more flexible housing options — without compromising public safety.
Understanding the Context
Historically, Virginia’s Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) has required two exit stairs for residential buildings above three stories. This standard is rooted in life safety: if one exit is blocked during an emergency, the second offers a critical alternative for egress or rescue. But across the country — from Seattle to New York City — cities are revisiting this rule in light of shifting urban needs, modern fire suppression technology, and the growing housing affordability crisis.
In fact, ICC proposal E24–24, which would expand single-stair allowances in the International Building Code, has already cleared the committee hearing phase. Our advisory group studied this proposal closely and looked to both U.S. cities and international models as we deliberated.
Key Findings: Balancing Safety with Design
We did not arrive at a formal proposal — but we did deliver a comprehensive framework for future code development. Our findings acknowledged both the fire safety imperatives and the benefits of streamlined circulation design in dense, walkable neighborhoods. Among our major insights:
- Fire Safety Concerns Remain Paramount: At four stories and higher, Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings (EEROs) become unfeasible. Without a second exit, stairwells must serve dual functions — for occupant escape and first responder access — which can create dangerous choke points in real-world emergencies. Leading fire organizations including the Virginia Professional Fire Fighters, IAFF, and NASFM submitted written opposition without added safeguards.
- Modern Protections May Mitigate Risk: We evaluated a range of enhancements — some drawn from NFPA symposiums and Seattle code modifications — including:
- Requiring Type I or II noncombustible construction
- Pressurized stairwells and early smoke detection
- Higher sprinkler densities and mechanical smoke ventilation
- Wider stairways (60" minimum) and floor area/unit caps
- Strict limits on penetrations into rated assemblies
These features could enable a defend-in-place strategy and mitigate the consequences of a single-egress configuration.
The Case for Reform
Despite the fire safety concerns, we also recognized the compelling planning and housing arguments for revisiting the two-stair requirement. In cities like Charlottesville, and across the Commonwealth, small infill lots are frequently undevelopable under current code. Adding a second stair — especially in podium or walk-up designs — often renders projects financially infeasible.
Get Eric S. Cavallo’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Stakeholders cited Charlottesville’s Inclusionary Zoning Analysis, the Virginia Zoning Atlas, and examples from Oregon, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Vancouver to underscore how single-stair buildings:
- Fit better on narrow urban parcels
- Allow for more daylight and cross-ventilation
- Support contextual, historically appropriate design
- Expand missing middle housing options (e.g., walk-ups, stacked flats)
- Improve financial feasibility of small-scale multifamily
A Path Forward: Governance by Process
Perhaps the most important takeaway from our group was not just about code mechanics — but about governance itself. There was broad agreement that legislating specific building code outcomes, as opposed to evaluating them through the structured DHCD code development process, risks undermining Virginia’s stakeholder-led model.
To that end, we recommended:
- Continued discussion through the 2024 building code update cycle
- Formation of a dedicated workgroup to refine code proposals
- Ongoing review of ICC Proposal E24–24 (as modified) and similar efforts
- Rigorous cost-benefit analysis of required safety enhancements
Conclusion: A Vision Grounded in Safety and Flexibility
Virginia now has an opportunity to lead — not just by expanding housing options — but by doing so with intention, evidence, and balance. The next phase of our work begins June 24th, when our stakeholder group reconvenes to explore the path toward a viable code change proposal.
As a licensed commercial contractor and a civic participant in land use and housing policy, I believe that any future change must do more than reduce costs — it must preserve safety, respect our process, and respond to Virginia’s evolving urban form.
The debate around single-stair construction is not a binary one. It’s about finding that essential balance between innovation and protection, housing and safety, growth and governance.
Let’s keep building smarter — and safer.
To learn more about the conversation surrounding single-stair reform, and how Earthly Infrastructure® is helping shape a safer, more sustainable future for Virginia’s built environment, I invite you to visit earthlyinfrastructure.com/built-safe-built-va. Whether you’re a builder, policymaker, planner, or concerned resident, your questions and insights are welcome as we continue this important work. Let’s build safe — and build Virginia.
